Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Slate Writer Takes Lefty Critics Of Rubio Creationist Remarks To Task

November 26, 2012 by  

Slate Writer Takes Lefty Critics Of Rubio Creationist Remarks To Task
UPI FILE
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called the age of the planet "one of the great mysteries."

In a recent column, the left-leaning Slate pointed out the hypocrisy of liberal attacks against Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio for his assertion in a magazine interview that he really wasn’t sure how old the planet was.

The article reads:

By now you’ve heard the outrageous quote from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on his doubts about the origins of planet Earth. When asked to give its age, he replied: “I’m not a scientist, man. … Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

He’s not a scientist—no, indeed—and his comments have brought on a slew of finger wags and face-palms from the godless left. The answer was “so confused and error-riddled,” wrote Phil Plait in Slate, “it’s difficult to know where to start.” We all should understand the age of Earth is not a matter of opinion, but a scientific fact: Our planet formed 4.54 billion years ago. If Rubio suggested otherwise, it’s because he’s uninformed or stupid.

But unlike many of Rubio’s other attackers from the left, the author of the article, Slate’s Daniel Engber, points out another scientifically and religiously willfully ignorant commenter on the subject of Earth’s origins.

Here’s how President Barack Obama answered a question about whether he believed God created the world in six days at a 2008 speaking engagement:

I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.

And here’s Rubio’s answer from the December 2012 edition of GQ regarding how old he believes the Earth to be:

I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

With looming financial calamity, global war only a button away at any given time and a near constant assault by the Federal government against American civil liberties, should the populace really care at all about how either of these guys believe we got here in the first place?

Hat Tip: Slate

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Slate Writer Takes Lefty Critics Of Rubio Creationist Remarks To Task”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • R Stone

    Rubio is an unbeliever. He s just a cheap politician. as for Obama, the Bible is very clear. THE EVENING and THE MORNING were the first day. the Next evening and morning was the second day. That’s 24 hours. It’s crazy to believe it… but that is what faith is… it s a belief in the impossible otherwise it wouldn’t be faith, belief , and it would be too easy. God asks us to take a baby step of faith. Then we get confidence to know He s right

    • Vigilant

      Ironic that Obama knows the Bible better than Rubio. Six days it was, not seven, according to Genesis.

      • dianiline

        Six is contained within seven. What God created in six days, He also created in seven days. It is not inappropriate to count the day of rest in the days of creation.

      • SJJolly

        Did God punch a timeclock during Creation? If yes, let’s see His timecard and worksheets. What, He forgot to create them? : – ?

  • Ted

    I can’t say that I’ve ever heard of a publication called the ‘Slate’. Now i know why!

    • eddie47d

      Maybe that makes you an ostrich who never searches beyond what you already know. Now was the earth made in 6 days or is it millions of years old? Was the “original” earth destroyed by a meteor or conflict and God came along and created a complete make over to his liking? I can accept my Christian Faith but that doesn’t mean it has to be blind Faith in regards to the age of our planet.

      • OneGuess

        Must you always go with the put down? Unless it is Karolyn or a few other of your bot buddies always with the put down. Poor you.

      • Robert Smith

        Great contribution to the discussion (NOT).

        Now, do you have any ideas about how to reconcile the age of Earth with religion?

        Rob

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Robert Smith,

          You write: “Now, do you have any ideas about how to reconcile the age of Earth with religion?” There is no need for the Christian to do so. Genesis makes clear the universe and all therein was created in 6 days. A God able to speak all of creation into existence does not need to confine himself to man’s limited ability to understand how or when the creation occurred nor attempt to explain how it happened. Knowing the age of the earth is not crucial to salvation.

          1 Corinthians 1:
          18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
          “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
          and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
          20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
          1 Corinthians 3:
          18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Vigilant

        RS says, “Now, do you have any ideas about how to reconcile the age of Earth with religion?.

        RS has a pathological incapability to grasp symbolism and metaphor.

        With the exception of the fundamentalist literal understanding of the Bible, most Christian denominations accept the symbolism of one Biblical “day” as equivalent to an undetermined span of years. Such “reconciliation” as you demand has been done ages ago.

        If you are an anti-fundamentalist, say it, but don’t use it as a basis for throwing out all Chrtistian understanding of the Bible.

      • TML

        eddie47d says “Now was the earth made in 6 days or is it millions of years old?”

        Robert Smith says “Now, do you have any ideas about how to reconcile the age of Earth with religion?”

        Relativity; it was both 6 days from point of reference from ‘singularity’, and 15.5 billion years from our frame of reference on earth.

        http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

      • TML

        I can, of course, shoot holes in this theory, but it’s the best I’ve ever studied.

      • larry ryan

        The arrogance of some of you people is boggling. You (and you alone) know the mind of God. God’s limits (if any) are known and determined by you. We must worship God, but only YOUR God and only YOUR way. Anything else is blasphemy and any belief that doesn’t match yours is is heresy. Time and how we view it is a manmade invention. Nowhere in the Bible or anywhere else does anything say what God’s view of time is. Or in your infinite wisdom, does God have to conform to our view of time lest we be angry and deny Him? Your arrogance and stupidity is tedious.

    • waltinseattle

      No wonder people roll their eyes when you pontificate on public matters. Even if you don’t like the left, you should be willing to know what the left says about things, and where they say it. Otherwise you are listening to interpretations of interpretations…oh I’,m sure you don’t care to get the point. did you ever hear about knowing your enemy? or does Fox suffice? score one for freethinkers…not!

  • Peter 10-nov-1775

    So when the halfrican or any of his ilk say something, it is gospel and not to be criticized.
    Just like when a democrat has a war it is a good thing, but when it is under a Republican it is a bad thing. And, oh, by the way, what ever happened to code pink and that other disgrace, cindy shehan? Seems to have disappeared since the halfrican was anointed. And we still have troops in harm’s way!!!

    • eddie47d

      You sound like “half” a prophylactic full of holes and “half” useless.

      • OneGuess

        Poor you, eddie47d. Just a minority who is always right. Poor you.

      • Peter 10-nov-1775

        eddie47d-is that your bra size or your IQ?

      • eddie47d

        I can’t help it if One Guess approves of Peters name calling. Typical Conservative trolls who can dish it out but can’t handle the truth. The difference is that I used humor and Peter used meanness to describe the President.. One thing for sure that could be your shoe size and would fit perfectly in your big mouth.

    • Mikey

      Peter, you are correct, especially when it comes to the mainstream media. I only wish our population could see how they are being manipulated by the MSM. This article is a classic example of the slant.

      • Robert Smith

        Real science vs. religion?

        How is that a “slant?”

        Rob

      • Vigilant

        “Real science vs. religion?

        “How is that a “slant?”

        RS fails to grasp again. Re-read the article, sonny. You’ve made it into something it isn’t.

        A clue for the person of normal IQ is the opening and closing paragraphs, i.e.,

        “In a recent column, the left-leaning Slate pointed out the hypocrisy of liberal attacks against Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio for his assertion in a magazine interview that he really wasn’t sure how old the planet was.”

        Last paragraph:

        “With looming financial calamity, global war only a button away at any given time and a near constant assault by the Federal government against American civil liberties, should the populace really care at all about how either of these guys believe we got here in the first place?”

        Now just where in that article to you find a definitive argument for or against the primacy of either side? Answer: Nowhere.

    • Bernard Forand

      It is mystery or perhaps not. Ever notice that the propaganda, hate, bigots, defeatist, assassins, and so on all come from the Right Wing Nuts. Regardless of their political nomenclature. Notice petey and how he squirms with vile bigotry and then will blame someone else for this or that to defend the idea that he is not a bigot. Probably a Tea Intoxicated Republican. Good to know the majority recognizes this creature with ease..

      • dianiline

        Have noticed that that is what the left wing nuts like to call them.

      • Mikey

        So, I guess you didn’t bother to read the article either, Bernard. Or, you did and simply chose to ignore the point that was well made in it.

    • waltinseattle

      all your “hafrican” observations of B.O.being as bad as that republican are arguably true. your misinterpretation of the left…and us others who are not among the flock of your favored true beluevers…your misinterpreration is offensive, and your cultivated ignorance is absolutely astounding.

  • http://uncleteddysreeducationcamp.com teddy maher

    Faith is the belief in things unseen(e.g..unproven) with the Hope of things to come….The RNC is being run by a bunch of DOPES…. BTW YOU LOST!!! It should be abundantly clear you do not have the answers for 2016…Pandering to Hispanics,Blacks and silly young women will not win an election….By 2016 conservative politics will permeate the soup kitchens and breadlines,while union thugs,government pensioners and an empowered poor will determine the direction of this once blessed nation….If you do not like this senario GET OFF YOUR ASS and get involved…

    • Vigilant

      “Pandering to Hispanics,Blacks and silly young women will not win an election….?”

      It worked for Obama.

      • sesame

        Teddy, you apparently did not read the election results!

      • Robert Smith

        Give ‘em a clue, why don’t you?

        Obama WON the popular vote.

        AND, he won the Electoral vote by a landslide.

        Rob

      • Vigilant

        RS misses the point again, which was (DUH), that Obama won by pandering to Hispanics,Blacks and silly young women. Add to that: socialist-programmed college students.

      • Peter 10-nov-1775

        Of course it did!! Just think about all the goodies distributed just before the election!!

      • Vigilant

        Peter,

        And let’s not forget the cooked unemployment figures, the proposed bribery to firms who were planning to lay off people after an Obama re-election, and the cover up of CIA/WH shenanigans vis a vis Benghazi.

        I like the 10 November 1775 touch. We should all be proud of that date as the birth of the USMC.

      • Robert Smith

        Vigilant claims about pandering to minorities: “It worked for Obama.”

        Obama would not have won if he only relied on minorities.

        Rob

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Of course not, Robert, that’s why Vigilant included silly young women, and socialist-programmed college students to the list.

        • waltinseattle

          oh cant we just focus on silly braiwashed collegiate wimmen?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Uh, Vigilant, Peter, and Jay

        Who exactly was Romney “pandering” to and didn’t that actually lose him the election because he alienated a lot of folks?

        It’s easy to say O’Bama “pulled” voters his way if you don’t want to face the fact that Romney and the Republican platform “pushed” them away.

    • dianiline

      Unseen does not mean unproven. It means unseen.
      Also I believe you meant “i.e.”, not “e.g.”.

  • dhip

    The press just can’t help themselves, taking after Rubio already, a conservative republican. What kind of a question was this anyway. In college we used to argue about this sort of thing. These people need to grow up.

    • Robert Smith

      I’ll “grow up” and stop defending real science when those of “faith” stop making stuff up and telling me to believe it whether it makes sense or not.

      Rob

      • Vigilant

        Who, pray tell, is telling you to believe anything?

        Seems to me that you are telling people to believe ONLY what you believe.

        Ever heard of the First Amendment, idiot?

      • Gary L

        Rob, I don’t care what you believe. Perhaps you could return the favor.

      • Robert Smith

        Posted: “Rob, I don’t care what you believe. Perhaps you could return the favor.”

        To the extreme right:

        I will when you stop pushing “creationism” onto schools as science.

        I will when you stop pushing an anti-abortion upon women who are not of your faith.

        I will when you stop advocating that the poor in America should go without health care.

        I will when you stop using your religion to deny marriage contracts to all consenting adults who want it.

        I will when you stop proclaiming some TV shows or movies to be “immoral” and deny those outside your religion access to material they want to watch (for adults).

        I will when you stop denying recreational drugs to adults and religious drugs (ganga & peyote) to other religions, yet you keep your own approved recreational drug of choice, alcohol.

        I will when you remove all advocacy for blue laws and allow the rest of us to shop for anything we want on Sunday.

        Rob

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Rob: To the extreme right:

        R: I will when you stop pushing “creationism” onto schools as science.

        Of course, as that would interfere with pushing “evolution” as science. We wouldn’t want to stress the kiddies with presenting multiple, world-views.

        R:I will when you stop pushing an anti-abortion upon women who are not of your faith.

        Another words, do it my way or the “baby” gets it! Either way, the baby is screwed.

        R: I will when you stop advocating that the poor in America should go without health care.

        Another words, don’t away my leverage(the poor). I understand, Robert. As the God-father use to say; never negotiate from a position of weakness!

        R: I will when you stop using your religion to deny marriage contracts to all consenting adults who want it.

        Who’s denying marriage to consenting adults, Robert? I think what you are referring to is the debate on what is the definition of marriage, right? Something wrong with that?

        R: I will when you stop proclaiming some TV shows or movies to be “immoral” and deny those outside your religion access to material they want to watch (for adults).

        Is there someone who is denying you access to the immoral, idiot-box, Robert? If so, that is clearly wrong. You have every right to to savage your brain in whatever manner you see fit, or un-fit.

        R: I will when you stop denying recreational drugs to adults and religious drugs (ganga & peyote) to other religions, yet you keep your own approved recreational drug of choice, alcohol.

        You have a point, Robert. Congratulations!

        R: I will when you remove all advocacy for blue laws and allow the rest of us to shop for
        anything we want on Sunday.

        Uh, did i miss something? Oh wait, you’re pulling a time-warp…funny guy!

      • waltinseattle

        to vigilant on 26 re socialust countrues and abysmal health care. uh you aparentky heard that ehopper sooften that you believe it on faith. disproof is in the stats my dear. infant mortality heart disease deaths…but infant death where we rate average among 3rd world nation…lag behind all well developed nations. does that reach through the faux news big lie campaign? No dear, many mindless zombies who followed their masters voice voted REPUBLICAN! FACT!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I DON’T BELIEVE IT! WTS(Jay) has posted an ORIGINAL THOUGHT rather than his usual lazy PARROTING distractions. Of course, he was still a bit lazy since he just built on someone else’s words but we must give him some credit in order to encourage him.

        One of Jay’s (not so) original thoughts needs rebuttal because it is a “core” issue and Jay is so egregiously WRONG in what he says that it can’t be ignored:

        R: “I will when you stop pushing “creationism” onto schools as science”.

        Jay says, “Of course, as that would interfere with pushing “evolution” as science. We wouldn’t want to stress the kiddies with presenting multiple, world-views”.

        Creationism is RELIGION-BASED, evolution is SCIENCE-BASED. One CANNOT teach Biology without evolution since it underlies so much of the body of knowledge that constitutes “biology”. Having taught some biology before moving into administration, I can state that it just can’t be done. Evolution is not PUSHED, it is TAUGHT, and is integrated throughout any course that is really a biology course. The proper place for creationism is in religion classes or philosophy classes. When I taught biology 45+ years ago, the issue DID come up—students and their parents would give me brochures and even whole books on what passed for creationism back then. We did address the issue in order to get past it and into the real science, but no science teacher would ever consider treating the issue as a “competition” between “multiple world views”—-that was properly discussed down the hall in classes on history, geopolitics, philosophy, religion, or government.

        My stock answer to the inevitable questions of “Is this gonna be on the test?” and “What happens if I just write for any evolution question that ‘I refuse to answer this because it’s against my religion’ and leave it blank?” were:

        “Yes, EVERYTHING we do in here will be “on the test” sooner or later” and…
        “If you write that and don’t answer the question, you get a zero. This class has nothing to do with religion”.

  • Di, Cerrillos,NM

    Since when does a reply like Rubio’s need criticism? He was asked a question by a moron. He said the truth, he’s not a scientist and doesn’t know when the earth began. neither do I, I wasn’t on site to observe and neither were the writers of the Bible.

    The morons lead one into discussions that are irrelevent to the issues. He wisely decided not to get sucked into a question that had nothing to do with the election.

    Bravo, Marco.

    • elba schmitt

      Di, I agree with you. When we have so many serious issues on our debt, jobs, economics, what does it matter when the “earth” was made or how long it took. These idiots are the same ones who voted for Obama. A tragedy for all Americans. e schmitt

      • Bernard Forand

        OH YEE Of so little memory. Fortunately the majority see you as the idiot!
        Volatility markets contributed to the tumultuous finish to Bush administration. 2008 with reckless policies and omissions, created the perfect storm. Bush entered office with DOW at 10,587; left office with the Dow at 7,949 producing a negative market loss through out his tenure. Last 17 months stock markets experienced an historical loss of 58%! This was worst than any 17month rolling cycle of the Great Depression. Unemployment rose 750,000 per month! Took FDR 13 years to get us out of the Great Depression. Took Obama 27 months. Now healing takes time, more time than the abuses that were inflicted upon us.

  • T. Jefferson

    I’m a firm believer in “creationism” . I also believe we were not created here but out there. The human race is very old and society on this planet has been destroyed more than once on this planet. It takes less than 1000 years to wipe out all evidence of our habitation. The only thing left after a few hundred years would be large stone structures. If we all died today all that would be left in 5000 years would be the pyramids, mount Rushmore, Hoover dam and a few aztec ruins.

    • Bernard Forand

      Yes it is so much easier to believe in Hocus-Pocus. As with all false foundations the walls come tumbling down.

      • Vigilant

        “Yes it is so much easier to believe in Hocus-Pocus.”

        You are, of course, talking about socialism. In the face of every historical attempt to make it work, it has ALWAYS failed. You either have blind faith in socialism, or you fit the definition of insanity by repeating over and over again that which does not work, and never has.

        Yes, the walls will come tumbling down on you and your fellow travelers, it’s just a matter of time.

      • Robert Smith

        Vigilant claims: “In the face of every historical attempt to make it work, it has ALWAYS failed. ”

        Nope, wrong again.

        All advanced industrial countries have health care that reaches pretty much all of their populations.

        America is right there with Cuba when it comes to the ratings, often round 19 or 20.

        Some efforts should be either socialized or tightly controlled. Electricity and water utilities are an excellent example. For many many years “utilities” were among the soundest of investments and the most reliable of services.

        Since deregulation we have trees not being trimmed and things like Enron.

        Rob

      • Vigilant

        “All advanced industrial countries have health care that reaches pretty much all of their populations.”

        And its record is abysmal. Strange you should choose as an example the very thing that DISPROVES your assertion.

        The fact that it exists is not proof of its success.

        Well, I’ve never accused you of having any smarts, so I guess I’ll just let your words speak for themselves.

  • “Homer”

    ALL People who don’t understand and KNOW that the earth was created in 6 days (God rested on the 7th day) are delussional. The KJV Bible clearly states this is FACT! So, if you have the answer…give it to me…but PROVE what you say! My answer is from the Word of God and that can NOT be proven wrong but can be prove correct and has been proven as such, in a court of law! Archeology and architecture and history and even science have proven this fact! The 1st 3 laws of Physics prove that the earth could not have evolved and the big bang as scientists believe could not have happened. Look em up, the are ONLY 4 expainations for this reality: 1 by accident (which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics) 2 It came about naturally w/no purpose in mind (which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics) 3. It began supernaturally at some time, w/a purpose behind it. (Science is demonstrable) 4, It’s not really here it is an Illusion (in which case someone is on drugs) and if this is your idea…then don’t call yourself scientific. There is ONLY ONE Proven answer to this question!! Psalms 118:8 KJV

    • Wil

      The KJV bible also states that a day is as a thousand years,and a thousand years as a day,to God.Perhaps some questions are unknowable to our limited human understanding.
      The ‘great mysteries’.

      • got my licence

        Correct, A day depends on where you are. The day on Mecury is different than the day on Pluto and that is just in this solar system. I am sure that Gods day will be different than what man understands. When the Bible states that Gods day is a thousand to us ,relize that at that time our punie primate mind could not grasp a number greater than a thousand. The correct answer would be the earth is as old as it is, not a day older or younger.

      • larry ryan

        Again it must be said. Mere mortal man cannot possibly know or understand the mind of God. God isn’t deliberately mysterious. We simply aren’t capable of comprehending. Anyone who claims to KNOW the mind of God is lying. Either for some gain or agenda or lying to themselves as well as others. Look at the universe. For our minds a near infinity of stars and planets. God created that, and if quantum physics is correct an infinity of similar AND different universes. Everything you can conceive of, is. Also, everything you can’t conceive of. Paradoxes, totally unresolvable by man, are something for God to play with in an idle moment for amusement. You, in your arrogance, really believe you can understand and dictate rules about that?

    • Hedgehog

      I vote for Number 4, “its an illusion and someone’s on drugs.” Science is another religion, no more nor less valid than any other. I think it was RAH speaking as Jubal Harshaw who said: “All religions look equally silly from the outside.”. And was it not Marx or Lenin or one of the other communist/socialist prophets who said: “religion is the opiate of the masses.”. The bible proves nothing. Editing, translation and transcription errors alone could account for many of the more spectacular claims in it. However, I agree with you on one point, the universe is not an accident, no proof, just a hunch. It might be an exercise in solipsism. I’ll find out in due time.

      • larry ryan

        Didn’t know there were that many RAH readers left. Seldom run into them. The Spider Robinson/Heinlein sort of collaboration “Variable Star” is a good read, although the science in the end is a bit questionable.

    • Bernard Forand

      While on the subject of religion, you might find this interesting; Guess who was born on Dec.25th of a virgin [Isis] Mary under a star from the east with 3 kings a following. Became a teacher at age 12, Baptized/minister at the age 30. Had 12 disciples. Walked about performing miracles. Carried titles such as Lamb of God, The Shepherd, The truth, The light and so on.. Was crucified, dead for three days and was resurrected.. Hint 3,000 B.C.
      Egyptian God Horus. Or perhaps you might remember him as Attis of Greece 1200B.C. or perhaps Dionysus of Greece 500B.C, OR Mithra of Persia 1200 B.C. all of them carry the same M.O. Have about 20 more that fit the same M.O. of Jesus What a coincidence.. Aliens?? Ha, Ha, Nope much simpler explanation. Keep in mind they had no T.V.’s or Internet and yet they come up with the same M.O.’s. “IT is written in the stars” everyday and every year. They have their bibles as well. Can you prove them correct any more than you can prove your bible as correct. Oh and archeology does NOT support your bible or theirs. Astronomy is closer to explaining all of your bible beliefs and superstitions.

      • Peter 10-nov-1775

        I read the DaVinci Code too.

      • larry ryan

        Actually arheology DOES support some of what’s in the Bible. Some of the Biblical locations and timelines are wrong, though. For example, Joshua and the walls of Jericho story more or less happened, but either there were two different Joshuas (not impossible, it wasn’t an uncommion name) or the timelines are off. The Exodus proveably happened. For years, archeology found no proof, because WE, not the Bible had the location wrong. The Nile moved. Not unlikely or impossible in 3,000 + years. Whether it took an actual 40 years, I’ve no opinion. 40 wasn’t used as an exact number. 40 days and 40 nights wasn’t literal. It was a way of expressing the concept: a long time. Archeologically speaking, Jesus existed. Speaking strictly non-spiritually, He was a wandering preacher who offended the political powers of the time and was executed by crucifiction at around age 33-35. All other events surrounding Jesus (some of his quotes are verifiable) are matters of faith. I suppose I give my own away by my capitalization of the H in He. I don’t ask, in matters of faith, that anyone believe as I do. However, if you mock my faith, I will most certainly mock your lack of it. Also concerning the story of the star guiding the three wise men. There was a nova that would been visible in our sky at approximately the time of Jesus’s birth. What significance (if any) that has is purely conjecture. There have been other visible novas before and since.

      • waltinseattle

        uh. ..da vinci code. and a century of scholars before it…read them you pathetic pop cukture moronic junkir!

  • “Homer”

    OH and Just a side note..Notice that the word ERA comes up! did the earth get created in 6 days or 6 eras of days or whatever time they decided to make the era…here is food for thought: IT had to have been 6 DAYS, and the Bible proves itself..See Genesis 1. The trees and grass and vegitation were made on the 3rd day…and the sun/moon/stars etc were made on the 4th day! So..had the length of time been more than a day or an era, maybe years of time then the grass and herbs and trees would have died, they NEED light from the sun to live…so how could it have been more than a day…I do believe God KNOWS this and that is why there is ONLY a span of one day between the days of creation! Why is this sooooo hard for people to fathom! He is GOD, He can do whatever He desires and so what is the problem? Just because you and I can’t? He walked thru walls and doors in the gospels after His resurecction and soooooooo why can’t He do what He said He would…HE already did it!!! 1 Peter 3:18 KJV

    • eddie47d

      Understanding the Bible and how the earth developed is a work in progress. Since there are millions of stars and billions of other planets did God create them all? Did he create the Black Holes where planets are completely dead of life or the massive explosions of colliding stars which wipes out other planets. Is God up there creating new worlds or destroying old ones or are they natural phenomenons?

      • OneGuess

        “Phenomenons”…? How did you miss THAT one, eddie? …mistakes are made…

      • eddie47d

        I mention Black Holes and One Guess pops in. I reckon he is still guessing!

    • Henry

      Homer here is some food for you to think about Light existed before the sun and stars were made, therefore they could live without the sun. On the fourth day the light was gathered and used to make the sun and stars.
      here is food for thought: IT had to have been 6 DAYS, and the Bible proves itself..See Genesis 1. The trees and grass and vegitation were made on the 3rd day…and the sun/moon/stars etc were made on the 4th day!

      • waltinseattle

        uh. ..da vinci code. and a century of scholars before it…read them you pathetic pop cukture moronic junkir!

  • http://www.facebook.com/hdon.skaggs H Don Skaggs

    Here is the esence of it all. We know what causes a year, the earth goes around the sun one time, we know what causes a month, the four cycles of the moon, we know what causes a day, the earth rotates on it’s axis one time, but there is no explaintion about where a seven day week comes from other then Creation. We talk about how old rock is based on our carbon four testing. But if God who created Adam and Eve created them at age, he could also create everything else at whatever age He wanted. By Bibical cronology, the earth is about 6,000 years old. D Skaggs

  • Cliffystones

    He should have given the same answer Obama gave when asked if/when a fetus became a person. “That’s above my pay grade”. Then how would the libtards respond?

    • http://midcontent brand inspecter

      If you are a socialist libatard, they don’t ask which counytu you were born in , or what your grades were and records where you went to school, and have you ever had a position thhat wasn’t support by government or society, that only created strife and malcont? AS for the age of the earth, who gives a rat’s bladder, it is old and like weather is always changing Something the socialisy/marxist bunborats never do Thet have always supported the abhorrant and pervertted as normal!!

  • C Heuer

    This disgusts me, that people are auguring over this. There is so much more going on this country right now and this is what we are dwelling on. Wake up people and concentrate on what is going on in this world now. We should be praying for our country and our rights to our religious beliefs to remain part of our freedom. Everywhere we turn they are removing God from everything. Lets fight for our continued freedom.

    Who knows what a day was to God after all he said our lives are even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanishes away,

  • tncdel

    PLEASE stop giving this RINO traitor print space. Please see:
    http://www.lovepumashoe.net/mens-puma-bmw-shoes-black-yellow-p-1309.html

    Rubio is also constitutionally ineligible to be president. Both his parents were foreign nationals at the time of his birth who did not even become naturalized till he was over 4 years old.

    • Gary L

      By 2016 there will be no more constitution.

  • Ron Brown

    Check it out real hydrologysts say that the Mississippi river has been running for only 4500 years which lines up with the bible account with the flood which is only a very small part of scientific evidence for the correctness of the bible open your eyes and you will see it.

    • Vigilant

      Those who search for scientific proof of the Bible’s assertions are on a fool’s errand. Ye of little faith! It’s not called “a leap of faith” for nothing.

      If you depend upon science to prove that which is empirically unprovable by definition, then your faith is weak indeed.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        You can sure nail it, Vigilant. Exquisite comment!!!

      • TML

        Systems that refuse doubt are devices for drugging thought.

      • Vigilant

        “Systems that refuse doubt are devices for drugging thought.”
        -TML, 2012

        “Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes” (“religion is the opiate of the masses).”
        -Karl Marx, 1843

      • TML

        :) Actually I was quoting Albert Guerard, and is the same principle that Jefferson spoke when he said, “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

    • SJJolly

      “… scientific evidence for the correctness of the bible.” There is far, far more scientific evidence that says the formation of the Earth and the Universe took far, far more than six terestrial days. So, did God create everything wilh false evidence of it’s age embeded in it? IOW: Did God lie? Satan put in the false information, but God chose to leave it in? (Same thing) The Biblical six days (plus a seventh day for rest) is alligorical.

      As for the press criticism of Rubio, it’s what the press does; sells newspapers. Maybe next week it will run a batch of love pieces on him.

    • waltinseattle

      ron…is it rattlesnake venom or the strychnine again..lay off that stuff, god,s worried about you.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

    According to Sir Karl Popper, is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.

    Karl Popper probably wrote the most important book related to this concept, which was titled The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Interestingly enough, he originally wrote it in German and then rewrote it in English. As a result, it is one of the few books that is published in two different languages but was never translated. The author wrote both versions. In this book, he argues that science should follow a methodology based on falsification. He shows quite clearly that while science cannot prove anything, it can falsify ideas that are currently thought to be true. He therefore argues that the test of any real scientific theory is whether or not it can be falsified. If not, then it is not truly a scientific theory.

    There are a lot of scientists who disagree with Popper that falsification is the key to whether or not a theory is scientific. However, few would argue with his point that science cannot prove anything. Indeed, the journal Science seemed to forget this fact for a moment, but an astute reader chastised the editor, who admitted he was wrong.

    The reader’s name is Charles L. Bennett, and he wrote a letter to the editor saying:

    “The title of the 6 May News of the Week story “At long last, Gravity Probe B satellite proves Einstein right” (p. 649)made me cringe. I find myself frequently repeating to students and the public that science doesn’t “prove” theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement. I wouldn’t have expected Science magazine, of all places, to say a theory was “proved.”

    Dr. Bennett is correct, of course. The editor, Colin Norman, admitted that in his response, which appeared right under the letter:

    “Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it”.

    Unfortunately, as long as science magazines and teachers are sloppy enough to keep
    using phrases like, “science has proven,” it will be hard to teach children the truth.

    http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Another word-for-word “parroting” of something from a conservative Christian website that Jay hopes will convince people more than any original thought he might come up with.

      Yes the concept of “proof” is one that we can discuss almost endlessly.—in science and religion and many other fields as well. (Less in mathematics, because numbers ARE, after all, numbers—-except when they’re not) And Science is constantly finding new “proofs” that support particular theories even more strongly or perhaps raise questions that result in a rethinking of those theories.

      The article that Jay “parroted” with his “copy” key is well-written but subtly biased (I won’t call it horsepucky, though) and nicely skirts the real issue about theories in the practical world. That is the one of preponderance of past evidence, consistency, and ability to explain future or contemporary events as they happen (prediction). The “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc”.

      Looking at evolution—-it is the way that the theory explains so much that is its real proof. The more we discover from the past, the better the theory looks—-the more things happen currently that are consistent with the theory, the better the theory looks.

      It is like anthropogenic global warning and climate change in that the weight of evidence points in a certain direction and just keeps doing so more strongly as time goes on and as knowledge is accumulated.

      There comes a time when things become self-evident, even though they can’t be “proved”.

      • waltinseattle

        common sense but unproved. does not gravity fit tgere? its only a part of a well ballanced theoretical” model, afterall. we would not want to contradict the truth that bodies living and reanimated will drift into the sky on that glorious day. therefore lets remember that gravity ain’t nothing real…just a nade up secular fantasy. thar!

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Can anyone explain why the names of a few commenters on this site show up in blue while the vast majority appear in black?

    • Vigilant

      RBT, they are URL links. Click in a few to see what they link to.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Thank you—I see. Can you now tell me why someone would need to do this?

  • Right Brain Thinker

    In closing, Sam asks “…..should the populace really care at all about how either of these guys believe we got here in the first place?”

    Yes Sam, we need to care deeply because this speaks to the whole issue of religious fundamentalism vs. science that permeates so much of what goes on on this country today. The rejection of science by so many on the right (see global warming and evolution) is something we really DO need to care about since it affects what our politicians and government do in so many areas.

    Another good book, The Republican War Against Science, speaks to this—-a good read—-written by the author of The Republican Brain—-the two books dovetail nicely.

    • Vigilant

      RBT, Christian fundamentalism has always been at odds with some (but not all) aspects of science. It seems a stretch, however, to extrapolate to a stereotype that includes all Conservatives or all Republicans. I’m sure you can find millions of them who reject a literal translation of the Bible.

      I said in another thread, and I firmly believe, that it doesn’t matter if elected officials are Christian, Muslim, Rastafarian, Atheist, vegetarians or Chevrolet men. What matters, and solely what the Founders envisioned, was that these people honor their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I didn’t mean to imply or extrapolate that ALL conservatives and ALL Republicans were at the root of the problems we face. I used to consider myself a “progressive moderate Republican” before the party went screaming past me to the right. I was left standing in the same spot, and without moving one inch, I’m now a “socialist-communist-Marxist” in the eyes of many on this site.

        Once the Republican primaries began nearly a year ago, I made two predictions. 1) Romney would be the nominee because the others were just too conservative (and even wing nut). 2) Romney would be forced so far to the right to beat out the others that he would have difficulty moving back fast enough and far enough to the middle, which is where he needed to be to win the independent voters in the general election. I liked Huntsman quite a bit. I even could have voted for the Romney who was the governor of Massachusetts, but could never vote for the Mr. Etch-A-Sketch, Flip-Flop, Say Anything To Get Elected he became—-especially after he picked Ryan for VP, a mistake as bad as McCain’s picking Palin. Both men catered to base rather than to the country, and both paid. The Republican Party has been pulled off its center by the extremists and is now caught on this fiscal cliff thing, which will likely not turn out well for them. .

        In my view, the religious right (and the tea partiers) have been coopted by the plutocracy and the 1%. Legitimate concerns about abortion, homosexuality, big government, and taxation have been stoked and fueled by the Roves and Kochs to build an army of foot soldiers on the right. Those foot soldiers think they are fighting for their beliefs—what they ARE fighting for is the preservation of the status quo for the special interests and the plutocracy.. Preserving the status quo and resisting change is a legitimate “conservative value”, but the religious right and tea party have lost their focus and are just doing the dirty work of the “don’t raise taxes on the job creators” bunch (who are only true conservatives in the sense of “keep your hands off my money”)..

        I have run us around the barn a couple times here to let you see some of my RB thinking. RBT’s look at big pictures and patterns and try to find a unifying theme for all the facts they see. I agree 100% with your second paragraph but would throw the preamble in there as well—the oath really says that they will defend the reasons the Constitution was written in the first place.. Let’s work back to your first paragraph, which I also pretty much agree with. The problem is not with “the millions of Conservatives or Republicans who reject a literal translation of the Bible”, or even with the ones who DO believe in a literal translation. The problem is that the rightward shift has become so extreme that the political process of the nation has become dysfunctional.

        To come full circle, IMO, the rejection of evolution has led to the rejection of other “science” as well, most notably in the area of Global Warming, and the drumbeat of misinformation from the stooges of the special interests has put all conservatives in the position of rejecting “science” or agreeing with those “horrible communist-socialist-Marxist people who want to take away your rights-and-and-and”. I’ve gone on long enough for now—it would take pages—does any of that make sense to you?

      • Vigilant

        First, allow me to apologize for some of the more inflammatory remarks we have traded in the recent past. I have found that when we can respectfully disagree on matters of philosophy without vitriol, we can more often than not find common grounds in some areas. I have, as much as anyone on this site, retreated to a defensive insult-trading position at times. It’s wrong and it gets us nowhere.

        Secondly, we do indeed find common ground in some areas. To answer your question, yes, much of what you say makes sense, but we part ways on some of aspects of interpretation.

        I found your comment regarding the Preamble to the Constitution interesting. Much has been written about the Preamble, which Wikipedia calls “a brief introductory statement of the Constitution’s fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers’ intentions regarding the Constitution’s meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.”

        Along those lines, it has wrongly been claimed in the past that the Declaration of Independence has no relationship to the Constitution. On the contrary, it established the very fundamental principles of Natural Law upon which everything followed.

        The Constitution, however, is a governing document above all else. In that sense, the Preamble has no assertive authority in legal proceedings. Once again, Wikipedia says, “The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble’s limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication, except as regards frivolous litigation.”

        As for evolution, that concept can reasonably co-exist with a skepticism about some of the claims made about global warming. No science is “settled,” as GALT tries to maintain, and it needs to be said that the science is still in its infancy when it comes to GW. If one could remove the politicization from the equation, knee jerk decisions (either way) would be less likely.

        Lastly, but not inclusively, that our political process has become dysfunctional goes without saying. I believe this has occurred for number of reasons, much of which is due to a lack of education or, more properly, a lack of wisdom.

        Tristram Shandy’s words were prophetic of what we see now: “Heat is in proportion to the want of true knowledge.” I still have a whole lot to learn about life (though I’m 66 years old), but I realized a long time ago that the more you learn, the more you recognize how little you know. No such consideration comes into play when you see zealous lieutenants on both sides of the question pontificating about matters over which they have researched no deeper than the latest talking point, soundbite or their own prejudices.

        I am a Conservative Constitutionalist, but I often see as many callow and immature utterings from the right as I do from the left.

        Much more to say, but we’ll tackle one item at a time as it comes up, OK?

        Good discussion.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        No need to apologize—I don’t recall exactly what we may have said to each other but I’m sure it didn’t sink to the level of what some say to others on this site. And it’s interesting that you view what you call “insult-trading” as “defensive”. I look at it more as an offensive move—attacking the forces of ignorance—but you are right, it doesn’t get us very far towards really communicating about anything of importance.

        I agree with all you say about the Declaration and the Constitution, but would extend things another step. The Declaration is basically a statement of “revolt” against monarchy, plutocracy, aristocracy, and corporations (as in East India Company and their tea). The Preamble to the Constitution, as you say, bridges the gap, and the Constitution lays out the specifics of how this government that is anti-monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, corporate fascism should be structured. It may not have the weight of law behind it, but “forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings” are worthy guiding principles. They have been compromised badly over the past 30 years, IMO mainly by those who call themselves “conservatives” and should therefore be concerned with preserving these foundational values.
        .
        I was speaking of a progression/spectrum if you will—a “one thing follows the other”. From religious belief in the literal interpretation of the bible to rejection of evolution, leading to general rejection of the ways of science, leading to the rejection of what the science tells us about AGW. With the last taking place because the special interests have “played” the religious right.

        Conservatives have no problem accepting the science that gives us modern medicine, airplanes, the computer, etc.—-why will they not accept the science of AGW? GALT is right in 99+% of what he says. (You’re right that no one can be 100%) I have a couple of degrees in science fields and have been actively teaching and studying environmental issues for 45 years. I had 20 feet of bookshelves with personally owned books on the issue that I gave away to other science educators upon retirement. I have access to several good libraries to keep abreast.

        The AGW issue IS “settled” to the point that we cannot bury our heads in the sand because the Koch brothers have hoodwinked us, it is NOT really in its infancy, and the only knee-jerk decisions being made are by those who deny and obstruct. We see new evidence that should concern us every day—-a new report was released this week showing that the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than we had thought and that the Antarctic ice sheet IS ALSO MELTING. One of the claims of the deniers has been that “the ice sheet in Antarctica is growing so AGW is not occurring”—-the new data will take that one away—-the deniers will snipe at the data and say “yes, but” and we will get ever closer to those “tipping points” that are out there waiting for us.

        “Lastly, but not inclusively, that our political process has become dysfunctional goes without saying. I believe this has occurred for number of reasons, much of which is due to a lack of education or, more properly, a lack of wisdom”. I recopied that exactly becuase it is spot on. You got it right that the lack of “wisdom” makes it hard to be “educated”. The problem I have seen and pushed with the idea of the “Republican Brain” is that too many on the right refuse to be educated and refuse to accept the “wisdom” of the scientists.

        Yes, Tristram Shandy’s words ARE DESCRIPTIVE of what we see now: “Heat is in proportion to the want of true knowledge.” I still have a whole lot to learn about life (though I’m 66 years old), but I realized a long time ago that the more you learn, the more you recognize how little you know. I’ve followed the same path as you but I’m 72, so I have 6 more years of learning under my belt. So when I say “Listen up, Junior”, you best pay attention. LOL

        “No such consideration comes into play when you see zealous lieutenants on both sides of the question pontificating about matters over which they have researched no deeper than the latest talking point, soundbite or their own prejudices”. True in general as it stands but the prejudices are heavily skewed to the conservative side in to many debates today because of the subtle cooption of the right by the plutocracy and corporate oligarchy. There is no corresponding prejudice on the left beyond the small number of extremists “out there”—they are outnumbered many times over by the folks on the right.

        “I am a Conservative Constitutionalist, but I often see as many callow and immature utterings from the right as I do from the left”. Politely said, but, as I just said, I would argue that there are considerably more from the right. That is certainly true on this site.

        “Much more to say, but we’ll tackle one item at a time as it comes up, OK? Good discussion”.

        I agree. Perhaps you’d like to discuss man’s place in the universe and God’s intentions in creating man and earth? Particularly as it relates to AGW and evolution.

  • http://personalliberty.com tim

    Up on the top of the barn crowing with the clairity of a fog horn warning all of the knowledge bestowed , foot on the throat of the victim so your message is uninterupted and clear , righteous. Never a concern for the honesty of a man to say ” I don’t know “. Raped , beaten , bleeding , all our liberties lie awaiting compassion and understanding for resolve.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.